Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)
Rajat Kumar Mishra And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 19 May, 2023 cites

Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008

In reply to the judgment in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242, it was contended by Mr. Mishra that it is clear from the fact of that case that the same is based on a policy decision of the // 70 // Government. Since there was no policy decision/executive instruction regarding fixation of qualifying mark subjectwise by the competent department as per Rule-23, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the Advocate General is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 263 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Sk Nausad Rahaman vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2022

46. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in reply to the judgments relied upon by the Opposite parties in SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 submitted before this Court that the documents annexed as Annexure A/1 and A/2 can never be construed as an executive instruction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 152 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 11 May, 2011

Although the judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan's case (supra) has been delivered on a different set of fact and in a different context, however, the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in interpreting Article 163 and 77(3) of the Constitution of India are the well settled proposition of law. Moreover, the same is also binding on this Court. However, on a careful analysis of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In view of the // 67 // provisions contained in Rule-23 of Rules in question. Rule-23 specifically provides that in case of interpretation of any provisions of rules or in case of any doubt with regard to the rules, the G.A. Department of the Government of Odisha is the competent authority to issue clarification/notification in the mater. No such notification/clarification having been issued in the present case or the letter in question having not been approved by the G.A. Department, the same cannot be construed as an executive instruction under the provisions of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India so that the same will be binding in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 217 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ramjit Singh Kardam vs Sanjeev Kumar on 8 April, 2020

40. On perusal of the judgment in Ramjit Singh Kardam's case (supra), this Court observed that the Hon'ble Supreme // 61 // Court has held that the candidate who participated in selection process without demur taking calculated chance to get selected, thereafter cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and constitution of selection committee, however, in the facts of that case and in the absence of any criteria being published by the Commission on the basis whereof candidates were going to be selected and candidates having participated in the process and such criteria having been published for the first time along with final results, candidates cannot be estopped from challenging selection criteria and process. Referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam's case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that in the reported judgment, although the power to devise mode of selection and to fix criteria of selection was entrusted to the Commission vide a Notification dated 28.07.1998 and even assuming that the Commission can change criteria of selection, the said power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary // 62 // manner and that the Chairman alone was not competent to alter the mode of selection criteria especially when change in criteria was done with objection of downgrading standard of selection. Further, it was held that the decision dated 03.08.2008 fixing criteria for selection was not taken on that day as claimed, but said resolution was prepared subsequent to declaration of result as is evident from the separate Group-C list signed by all members, produced before the Court pursuant to direction of Single Judge. Therefore, it was held that the decision to change selection process by Chairman alone not only affected the applicants but also had an adverse impact on merit based selection, which is certainly impermissible in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 138 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next